QSP Evil 2 [v0.71 P1a] [community project]

[johndoe191713]

pity, the game is rare, development was fast and the dev listened to user feedback. thank you for your efforts, with what I've got just over the holidays I think the game has much potential. ppl ought to stop being such snobs about free stuff

 

[Jack-O]

Spectr3

I quote:

"REVIEWING THREADS:
The usage of reviews is not just a means to rate a game, it is also, a way for users who have played the game to give an explanation as to why said game is good or bad.

Review Rules

1. Try to be objective, describe your reasoning and highlight what key aspects of the content were good or bad.
2. Do not mention other games or other developers in your review, this is to prevent cross promotion.
3. The review should only be about the game, not the developer (pricing, update times, etc).
4. There is a 200 character requirement, do not attempt to bypass this by using spam or irrelevant comments.
5. Your review shouldn't be solely focused on your feelings about a specific genre.
6. Do not review your own game or games you've worked on.

If you're short on ideas of what to talk about here's some suggestions:
Story, Originality, Renders, Sound, Playability, Performance, Bugs, Animations, Voice Acting, Grammar, Amount of content"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now apply the reasoning behind the ability to create reviews "... a way for users who have played the game ..." and the rules 1 and 5 to discussed review? Have fun trying to justify the review?
Based on the fact he even acknowledged he's never played QSP games and didn't even bother to find out what this game is about, or how the game really works? And based on rule 1 and 5? I can't justify that review, sorry. Reviews (good/bad) are fine with me. But this has nothing to do with a game review. The guy literally made shit up! And it isn't the first time this happens either.

And again we see someone who's engaged with the community leave. And yes, I blame our mods for being inactive when it matters. But when I call someone a retard for asking about a relase date 6 days in a row? I suddenly see my post being deleted and get a warning for being rude/offensive. So it's offensive to point out the truth? And when we lie it's OK?
There's multiple lies in that review. I guess it can stay because it fits the last mentioned criteria.

So when do forum rules apply and when not? When does anyone have the right to review a game she/he didn't actually play? When do you strictly follow the letter of the rules? And when do you follow the intention of the rules? Intentions of the review rules are pretty clear to me. Again I quote: "The usage of reviews is not just a means to rate a game, it is also, a way for users who have played the game to give an explanation as to why said game is good or bad." That should be enough in this case, imho.

PS. Last thing I wrote about this.

 

[Gizmoman]

I mean, not to mention that he explicitly states that he felt like he needed to make a negative review because the average rating was too high. That's just extraordinarily biased.
'This game is a 2 star at most so I'm rating it 1 star to bring down the average' :/

 

[Kevin Smarts]

Spectr3 you are a gentleman and I'm glad to see the review in question has gone. Hope things are treating you well.

 

[lil boom toob]

Maaaaan, this is one of the games I was really looking forward to watching develop.

I'm super duper bummed out now.

 

[Ceres82]

Maaaaan, this is one of the games I was really looking forward to watching develop.

I'm super duper bummed out now.

Same, hopefully this isn't the last we see of the dev.

 

[GammaXai]

I'm still willing to help bug hunt and stuff but have different levels of life tasks now that the winter holidays is ending and work is picking up.

 

[Heruactic]

well.. **** i actually liked this game.

 

[Tom7902000]

Really thank you so much and Best of luck

 

[Gizmoman]

well.. **** i actually liked this game.

Well you know, statistically the more you like something the more likely it is to hurt you. Mostly because things you don't really care about are less likely to affect you at all.

 

[OrphanOrphan]

Oops!

I actually came to add a review, not a really good one (3 stars), and find all this.

Even if I don't liked some of the "improvements" the developer made over the original engine, it's really sad than one of the most unique games of the site gets abandoned.

I was going to say than i didn't liked the drug selling limitation (not beeing able to sell more than 30.000 doses everyday), and than a more realistic aproach on the slave training (flogging causes fatigue) didn't came with a reduction on the level of dificulty (the number of sessions needed to break a slave didn't changed).

I love (most) QSP games, and i really wanted this one to continue, even if i missed the feminization stuff present on the original game, and the humiliation inflicted that way.

It amazes me than CrayonTips didn't know what a sandbox game is... But hey, after reading the review, i suppose he is somewhat "dense", cause this game is quite straightforward, and is really easy to see than the target of the game is to get money and power.

I really think than people with less than 25 messages shouldn't be allowed to review games.

I hope spectre1viper reconsiders his decision as, even if I don't like some of the options of the game, i would love to play it again on a later release.

 

[Gizmoman]

Oops!

I actually came to add a review, not a really good one (3 stars), and find all this.

Even if I don't liked some of the "improvements" the developer made over the original engine, it's really sad than one of the most unique games of the site gets abandoned.

I was going to say than i didn't liked the drug selling limitation (not beeing able to sell more than 30.000 doses everyday), and than a more realistic aproach on the slave training (flogging causes fatigue) didn't came with a reduction on the level of dificulty (the number of sessions needed to break a slave didn't changed).

I love (most) QSP games, and i really wanted this one to continue, even if i missed the feminization stuff present on the original game, and the humiliation inflicted that way.

It amazes me than CrayonTips didn't know what a sandbox game is... But hey, after reading the review, i suppose he is somewhat "dense", cause this game is quite straightforward, and is really easy to see than the target of the game is to get money and power.

I really think than people with less than 25 messages shouldn't be allowed to review games.

I hope spectre1viper reconsiders his decision as, even if I don't like some of the options of the game, i would love to play it again on a later release.

There's a pretty big difference between writing a 3 star review for a game that has some definite flaws and writing a 1 star review with the stated purpose that you want to lower the average. I mean a lot of this game's reviews are 3stars and most, if not all, of those are completely fair.

 

[Marantihr]

Dropping a game because of a bad review and the person's inability to talk with moderators?

I didn't expect to see children making porn games.

 

[anonymoustoyouall]

I really think than people with less than 25 messages shouldn't be allowed to review games.

While I agree with the idea of putting some kind of limit required before a user is allowed to post a review (either by time or by message count), that would prevent people who are newer or not frequent/active users on the site from being able to review regardless of their opinion and intent.
I'm pretty sure it would be infeasible to implement, but a minimal number of posts in the games thread would probably be the best way to go about applying such a limit. Proof that you have somehow engaged with the community specifically concerning the game and a record of your interactions to prove or disprove the degree objectivity of your review. Again, probably infeasible and, unless something like that can be implemented, the negative impact it would have on newer users (or older lurkers such as myself) would likely outweigh the benefits.

 

[Gizmoman]

While I agree with the idea of putting some kind of limit required before a user is allowed to post a review (either by time or by message count), that would prevent people who are not frequent/active users on the site from being able to review regardless of their opinion and intent.
I'm pretty sure it would be infeasible to implement, but a minimal number of posts in the games thread would probably be the best way to go about applying such a limit. Proof that you have somehow engaged with the community specifically concerning the game and a record of your interactions to prove or disprove the degree objectivity of your review. Again, probably infeasible and, unless something like that can be implemented, the negative impact it would have on newer users (or older lurkers such as myself) would likely outweigh the benefits.

This is always an issue. Main reason you put post restrictions on things is to stop bots, and I doubt bots would spam reviews.

That said, you could have someone's first review be forced through a moderator or so before it's actually posted.



That said, if the mods on the site just followed their own rules and deleted rule-violating reviews when they get reported nothing of the rest would really be an issue.

 

[Erik1986]

Shame to hear that a developer is discouraged by such a unfortuned set of circumstances. Inexcusable that a Trol review was partly responsible for this. That said i dont blame the dev, or moderators of anything, it is just a sad thing that it got this far. Good luck spectre1viper for future projects, should you decide to get back into the development of these games. It is a shame the game is abandoned now. While it naturaly had its rough edges (which game in current development doesnt) it also showed great potential akin to other large qsp games like GirlLife and such.

I hope you revisit the game in the future, until then best wishes for the future and good luck in life.

 

[Doejhn]

This is always an issue. Main reason you put post restrictions on things is to stop bots, and I doubt bots would spam reviews.

Eh, I'd say a message count requirement would still work, and bots aren't the only reason to have one. A higher message count means you've been around for a while and should know the rules and how stuff works around the site a little better than a newer user would.

It would also prevent spam in reviews should it ever start happening though, so that's another plus.

That said, you could have someone's first review be forced through a moderator or so before it's actually posted.

Honestly, that just sounds like a huge increase in workload for moderators.

I wouldn't wanna be the one in charge of reading people's first review just to make sure its okay. Also, what if I'd never played the game I'm supposed to okay the review for?

That said, if the mods on the site just followed their own rules and deleted rule-violating reviews when they get reported nothing of the rest would really be an issue.

It's not just about following the rules, though, it's about how the rules are interpreted. The more moderators there are, the more possible interpretations of the rules you'll have.

From where I'm standing, a message count requirement would be beneficial in both reducing bad faith reviews and the amount of policing mods have to do, which could reduce the need to add new mods to the staff and increase the quality of modding we get.

On a slightly related note, allowing devs to edit their own game tags should also happen AND be strongly encouraged, both because devs know best what is or isn't in their game and because it would, once again, reduce the workload of mods.

Also, if what spectre1viper said is true about mods editing other mods' edits on the OP, then mods might need to have a meeting and clarify exactly how guidelines are followed.

TL;DR: Add a message count requirement for reviews and give devs the power to edit tags on their games.

 

[Gizmoman]

Honestly, that just sounds like a huge increase in workload for moderators.

I wouldn't wanna be the one in charge of reading people's first review just to make sure its okay. Also, what if I'd never played the game I'm supposed to okay the review for?

I mean that's how the forum deals with people's first posts, manual check of them by a moderator before it's allowed to be posted. Severely doubt there are more reviews posted than normal posts, so the extra workload shouldn't be that dramatic.


And to be clear, you don't need to have played a game to see if a review isn't following the guidelines. Yes sure you can't exactly call out lies in the review, but that's what user reports are for.

 

[hotspot123]

Just an opinion there is a difference between positive criticism which makes someone want to improve and this one which break someone’s spirit specterviper has always been a good moderator and I loved both of his games sad to see him go
If you are reading this viper you may have 1 hater but also thousands of fans please return if possible

 

[docclox]

spectre1viper:

You did good work on this. Sorry to see it end, but I understand entirely. You get your batteries recharged.

"And when they've given you their all,
"Some stagger and fall,
"Because, after all, it's not easy:
"Banging your head against some mad bugger's wall"